Bozkurt v Thames Magistrates' Court

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns an application for judicial review of a decision by Deputy District Judge Shrimpton at the Thames Magistrates' Court on 6 October 2000. The issue arose from the prosecution’s reliance on evidence given by an interpreter who had acted both at the police station during the applicant's arrest and subsequently at the initial court hearing. The applicant, a Kurdish national with limited English proficiency, was arrested on 29 August 2000 for suspected drink-driving. An interpreter was present at the police station for the drink-driving procedure. Two days later, the same interpreter was used at the magistrates' court during an interview between the applicant and the duty solicitor, without obtaining the applicant’s consent, despite the interpreter potentially being a prosecution witness. The applicant challenged this on grounds including abuse of process, unfairness, and breach of rights under Articles 6(3)(c), 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it is an abuse of process, unfair, or a breach of Articles 6(3)(c), 8 and 14 of the ECHR for the prosecution to rely on evidence of an interpreter who acted both at the police station and during a solicitor-client interview without the defendant’s consent.
2. Whether the use of the same interpreter in these dual roles breaches legal professional privilege.
3. Whether the evidence given by the interpreter should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) due to concerns over fairness and confidentiality.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that legal professional privilege was breached because the interpreter, who was to be a prosecution witness, also interpreted communications between the appellant and the duty solicitor.
• It was argued that the presence of the interpreter in both roles deprived the appellant of confidential legal advice and thus violated the fundamental right to legal professional privilege.
• The appellant relied on guidance from the Metropolitan Police and PACE Codes of Practice, which require a separate interpreter for court proceedings if the police station interpreter is to be a prosecution witness.
• The appellant submitted that the prosecution’s failure to inform the duty solicitor about the interpreter’s dual role further compromised confidentiality and fairness.
• The appellant emphasized the importance of the right under Article 6(3)(c) ECHR to confidential communication with legal counsel, citing the European Court of Human Rights decision in S v Switzerland and the House of Lords decision in R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent did not dispute that it would have been preferable to use a different interpreter or obtain consent but denied any deliberate misconduct by police or interpreter.
• It was argued that the interpreter’s evidence related solely to the events at the police station and did not breach confidentiality regarding the solicitor-client interview.
• The respondent relied on section 78 PACE, submitting that any issues of unfairness could be addressed at trial, including through voir dire procedures.
• The respondent maintained that the interpreter was bound by strict confidentiality rules and legal professional privilege, preventing disclosure of privileged communications.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Derby Magistrates' Court, ex parte B [1996] 1 Cr App R 385	Emphasizes the fundamental nature of legal professional privilege in the administration of justice.	The court acknowledged the importance of legal professional privilege and its extension to interpreters present during solicitor-client communications.
Du Barre v Livette, Peake's Nisi Prius Cases 107	Establishes that interpreters are bound by the same duty of confidentiality as attorneys in privileged communications.	Confirmed that the interpreter must maintain confidentiality, reinforcing the protection of solicitor-client privilege.
S v Switzerland (1992) 14 EHRR 670	Interprets Article 6(3)(c) ECHR broadly to protect the right to confidential communication with legal counsel.	The court applied the principle that the accused's right to confidential communication with their advocate is fundamental to a fair trial.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered whether the use of the same interpreter at both the police station and during the solicitor-client interview constituted an abuse of process or breach of ECHR rights. It noted the extensive guidance governing interpreters, emphasizing their impartiality, independence, and strict confidentiality obligations. The court acknowledged that legal professional privilege extends to interpreters, who must keep confidential all communications during legal consultations.

Although it was recognized that the interpreter did not obtain the applicant’s consent nor inform the duty solicitor of her prior role, the court found no evidence of deliberate misconduct or improper conduct by the police or interpreter. The interpreter’s evidence related solely to the police station events, distinct from the solicitor-client interview, and confidentiality protections prevented disclosure of privileged communications.

The court further held that any concerns about fairness or prejudice could be addressed at trial, including through the application of section 78 PACE to exclude evidence if necessary. While the situation may create a perception of unfairness, the court concluded that this perception would be dispelled by an objective observer aware of the facts. Thus, there was no breach of Articles 6, 8, or 14 of the ECHR or section 78 PACE.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for judicial review.

The direct effect of this decision is that the prosecution may rely on the interpreter's evidence despite the interpreter’s dual role at the police station and during the solicitor-client interview. The court emphasized that confidentiality and privilege protections remain intact, and any issues of fairness can be addressed during trial. No new precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed existing principles concerning interpreter roles, legal professional privilege, and the application of section 78 PACE.